Parker and Phillips incorporated P & P Resorts Inc., a closely held Texas corporation. Parker was president and Phillips served as vice president and director for operations. Parker owned 40% of the stock, while Phillips owned 60%. Both men met with CTA, a group of travel agents from California to discuss special deals for booking groups into the resorts. After the first meeting, all contracts with CTA were made by Phillips, who learned that there was a good chance that CTA would award the contract to P&P Resorts. Phillips incorporated Travel Brokers and was its sole owner. Phillips used P& P Resort’s time to work on proposals for Travel Brokers and managed to keep negotiations with CTA a secret from Parker. When Parker discovered Phillip’s actions, he filed suit against him for wrongfully taking a corporate opportunity from P &P Resorts. Phillips claimed that he did not take a corporate opportunity because Travel Brokers did not have the financial ability to undertake the contract with CTA. Provide the arguments for Parker and Phillips. Determine which party should win and provide support for your selection. Explain any ethical principles applicable to this case.

Parker and Phillips incorporated P & P Resorts Inc., a closely held Texas corporation. Parker was president and Phillips served as vice president and director for operations. Parker owned 40% of the stock, while Phillips owned 60%. Both men met with CTA, a group of travel agents from California to discuss special deals for booking groups into the resorts. After the first meeting, all contracts with CTA were made by Phillips, who learned that there was a good chance that CTA would award the contract to P&P Resorts. Phillips incorporated Travel Brokers and was its sole owner. Phillips used P& P Resort’s time to work on proposals for Travel Brokers and managed to keep negotiations with CTA a secret from Parker. When Parker discovered Phillip’s actions, he filed suit against him for wrongfully taking a corporate opportunity from P &P Resorts. Phillips claimed that he did not take a corporate opportunity because Travel Brokers did not have the financial ability to undertake the contract with CTA. Provide the arguments for Parker and Phillips. Determine which party should win and provide support for your selection. Explain any ethical principles applicable to this case.

Similar questions

In 2022, Rebecca formed Black Corporation, a C-Corporation. Rebecca transferred real. estate with an adjusted basis of $260,000 and a fair market value of $390,000 in exchange for 100% of Black Corporation's common stock. The real estate was encumbered by a mortgage of $290,000, which Black Corporation assumed. The total value of Black Corporation's common stock after formation was $100,000. Q A N a) What amount of gain or loss is realized and recognized by Rebecca on the real estate transfer to Black Corporation? b) What basis does Rebecca take in her Black Corporation stock? c) What basis does Black Corporation take in the real estate contributed by Rebecca? 2 W S 3 X مو do command E D C R F 5 T V 6 G Y B 67 H U 8 N I 9 M O 0 V مو ob P command
Joseph and Mai each bought shares of Apple stock at $200 per share. About a week later, Joseph called his stockbroker and told him that if Apple was trading below $195, he wanted to sell. The broker was very busy, so he didn’t check but Apple was trading at $194 per share. He told Joseph that it was not below $195, so Joseph did not sell the stock. Mai also called her stockbroker that day also and told him that if Apple was trading below $195, she wanted to sell. Once again, the broker was very busy, so he didn’t check but Apple was trading at $194 per share. He told Mai that it was not below $195. However, Mai saw the price on her computer and knew it was $94. However, Mai did not sell either. Apple dropped to $180 per share by the end of the day and they both sold suffering a large loss. They both sue the brokers. What are the probable outcomes of the suits?
"Lillian Pritchard was a director of Pritchard & Baird Corporation, a business founded by her husband. After the death of her husband, her sons took control of the corporation. For two years, they looted the assets of the corporation through theft and improper payments. The corporation’s financial statements revealed the improper payments to the sons, but Mrs. Pritchard did not read the financial statements. She did not know what her sons were doing to the corporation or that what they were doing was unlawful. When Mrs. Pritchard was sued for failing to protect the assets of the corporation, she argued that she was a figurehead director, a simple housewife who served as a director as an accommodation to her husband and sons. Was Mrs. Pritchard held liable?"
hi can i get help with these please?
Was it good for Jacoby, Meyers, and Koff to set up a general partnership for their Jacoby & Meyers law firm?
homas Persson and Jon Nokes founded Smart Inventions, Inc., to market household consumer products. The success of their first product, the Smart Mop, continued with later products, which were sold through infomercials and other means. Persson and Nokes were the firm’s officers and equal shareholders. Persson was responsible for product development, and Nokes was in charge of day-to-day operations. In time, they became dissatisfied with each other’s efforts. Nokes represented the firm as financially “dying,” “in a grim state, . . . worse than ever,” and offered to buy all of Persson’s shares for $1.6 million. Persson accepted.On the day that they signed the agreement to transfer the shares, Smart Inventions began marketing a new product—the Tap Light. It was an instant success, generating millions of dollars in revenues. In negotiating with Persson, Nokes had intentionally kept the Tap Light a secret. Persson sued Smart Inventions, asserting fraud and other claims. Under what principle…
Little Switzerland Brewing Company was incorporated on January 28. On February 18, Ellison and Oxley were made directors of the company after they purchased some stock. Then on September 25, Ellison and Oxley signed stock subscription agreements to purchase five thousand shares each. Under the agreement, they both issued a note that indicated that they would pay for the stock “at their discretion.” Two years later in March, the board of directors passed a resolution canceling the stock subscription agreements of Ellison and Oxley. The creditors of Little Switzerland brought suit against Ellison and Oxley to recover the money owed under the subscription agreements. Are Ellison and Oxley liable? Why or why not?
In 1961, Ford Motor Company acquired Autolite, a manufacturer of spark plugs, in order to enter the profitable aftermarket for spark plugs sold as replacement parts. Ford and the other major automobile manufacturers had previously purchased original equipment spark plugs (those installed in new cars when they leave the factory) from independent producers such as Autolite and Champion, either at or below the producer’s cost. The independents were willing to sell original equipment plugs so cheaply because aftermarket mechanics often replace original equipment plugs with the same brand of spark plug. GM had already moved into the spark plug market by developing its own division. Ford decided to do so by means of a vertical merger under which it acquired Autolite. Prior to the Autolite acquisition, Ford bought 10 percent of the total spark plug output. The merger left Champion as the only major independent spark plug producer. Champion’s market share thereafter declined because Chrysler…
Olav starts Power Cells to make and sell batteries. Later, Olav contracts with Quinn to invest additional capital in the firm in exchange for 25 percent of the profits. Olav and Quinn are not partners in Power Cells because
Granite Insurance Company entered into a treaty reinsurance agreement with Rock Solid Reinsurance (RSR). Granite's retention limit is $400,000 and RSR agreed to provide reinsurance for up to $2.0 million. If Granite writes an $800,000 policy, RSR is responsible for 50 percent of the losses. If Granite insures a $1.6 million risk, RSR is responsible for 75 percent of any losses. What type of reinsurance arrangement did Granite enter into with RSR? ما A) reinsurance pool B) surplus share reinsurance C) facultative reinsurance D) excess of loss reinsurance
Wiener Haus #82 has been underperforming for a few years. The franchisee (owner of Haus #82) is frustrated and files a claim against the franchisor for breach. The franchisee claims that the agreement he signed contained a statement at the start of the agreement detailing that the business model the franchisor developed was "proven effective and profitable." On these facts, does the franchisee have a winning breach of contract claim against the franchisor? O No, the contract formed was a voidable contract. Thus, the franchisor is void of responsibility if the business model does not produce profit for the franchisee. O Yes, the franchisee relied on these statements when deciding to contract and thus the franchisor should be responsible when the business model fails to work for the franchisee. O No, courts have generally held that the type of language relied upon by the franchisee is "prefatory" and does not create a duty on the part of the franchisor. O Yes, the money paid to the…
Ay-Bee-Cee-Dee Corp. has filed a Subchapter S election under the Internal Revenue Code for taxation purposes. As you know, S corporations are allowed only a limited number of shareholders and, regardless of the number, certain types of entities, including other corporations, cannot be shareholders in S corporations. Carter wants to transfer his shares of Ay-Bee-Cee-Dee Corp. to CarCor, Inc., a corporation that he and his brothers own. If Able, Baker, and Dennis want to preserve their Subchapter S election and, thus, block the transfer of Carter's shares to CarCor (without being stuck having to purchase Carter's shares themselves), which of the following transfer restrictions would best allow them to accomplish their goal?